Silent Night, Bloody Night 2: Revival

Considering I didn't like the original at all, I didn't expect to enjoy a sequel made decades later.

And I didn't.

This is barely a new movie. The majority of this is just footage from the original, just with a yellow color filter over the footage and narration explaining what happened. This was one of the laziest attempts at filmmaking I've ever seen. You could watch any type of killer Santa film and it'll be better than this.

There's literally no reason to watch this unless you just enjoy torturing yourself. It has extremely amateur performances from all around and it's simply not worth your time.

Arriving at their parents' house for Christmas, a woman and her brother realize that a strange series of killings around town are connected to a local legend from forty years earlier involving a killer Santa striking the town and must find a way to solve the mystery in order to stop the killings.

This was a rather enjoyable genre follow-up. Among the better features is the solid setup that allows for a nice homage to the original while tying things into a new storyline. The lengthy flashback detailing the events of the original and how the killer was diagnosed, confined, and released to set himself out on his rampage makes for a great connection to the antics played up here as the events described go a long way towards demonstrating the madness that set the original killer off. Bringing it around full-circle with how the family is connected to the killer and trying to demonstrate how the events are connected in the town makes for a fun time. There's also quite a lot to like with the enjoyable slasher set pieces when they arrive. Featuring a series of indie-flavored stalking scenes of the killer Santa appearing out of nowhere and striking unaware victims in graphic means, these scenes are usually quite fun here. The attack in the living room out into the front yard amongst the crowd of carolers or the killer striking the family in the house offer some enjoyable setpieces which are used to bolster the second half quite nicely with the chilling imagery of the killer at work for some frenetic scenes here, all making for a lot to like with this one. There are some minor factors that bring this one down. One of the few flaws here is the slow-burning pace on display that tends to keep a lot of the action off-screen during the first half. Since a large portion of the running time here is spent on going through the flashback in a fashion that fills in the backstory but does so with very little involving the current state of action. Most of the film is spent with this backstory flashback that takes up way too much of the running time establishing something that could've been done in a much more succinct and compact fashion without resorting to half the film being flashbacks. The other slight drawback to this one comes from the decision to incorporate the flashbacks from the original but change around the fates of characters for new purposes. Since this one very obviously changes around the fate of several individuals in some rather egregious choices simply to make the plot work, and while this makes for a fun connection to the original the logistics of doing so doesn't always require that rewriting. As well, despite the numerous kills throughout the film it manages to feature some rather weak effects-work on the kills that speak to its lower budget that all lower this one slightly.

Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.

I knew going in that it was a no-budget indie effort and set my expectations accordingly. I think that's the key to enjoying any movie like this. Jennifer Runyon, niece-in-law of Roger Corman and star of another cult Christmas horror classic To All a Goodnight is in this and elevates it some with her presence. There are a lot of flashbacks to the first movie (maybe a few too many) but I like the way they are all sepia toned instead of just the actual flashback from the original movie itself...which I guess would be a flashback within a flashback?

Anyway, I really thought the crew did a great job of making this come together and the passion behind it really shows. That's what I love most about these movies. The Black Peter santa mask was also pretty creepy and there's a couple of lovely homemade gore scenes. Probably would have rated higher if there had been a little less flashback stuff, but I'm still happy there's a sequel and will absolutely watch it again this holiday season!

This unofficial sequel of the original Christmas season slasher is an ultra low budget homemade horror, with a bit of a low country folk twist.

The plot is really poorly constructed, but it's mainly a re-hashing of the original film (using sepia toned clips from it, for the flashback segments).

Having clearly been inspired by Silent Night, Deadly Night 2.

Otherwise, it takes place in a bed and breakfast that sits on the former site of the Butler Mansion.

Where two siblings have rented rooms, only to find that they- and the other residents of the house- are being stalked by a copycat killer in a Santa costume.

Who, for reasons that aren't exactly clear, is Black Peter.

The entire storyline is pretty stupid, to be honest.

Which, I guess is to be expected, as soon as you become privy to it's quality.

So, it's not surprising that it is has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Just do yourself a favour and skip this one completely.

You won't be missing anything.

1.5 out of 10.

During Christmastime in East Willard, Massachusetts, two siblings visit their older brother's grave and stay at a family's house where they learn of the legend of Black Peter, Santa's dark brother. But it's the lost journal of a man named Jeffrey Butler that's really horrifying because it concerns the town's real-life creepy past.

"Silent Night, Bloody Night 2: Revival" (2015) is a sequel to the original movie from 43 years earlier and is not connected to the no-budget British remake from 2013 called "Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming," which only cost $20,000.

This one didn't have much more money to play with; I can't find a specific amount, but even if it was over twice that, say $50,000, this is a spare change budget flick. The original film was made in December-March, 1970-71, and cost $295,000, which would be $2.3 million in today's dollars (2024), which means it had more than enough resources for a competent film. Regrettably, this can't be said for this one.

While Julia Farrell is a worthy protagonist as Angelica Zacherly, it's otherwise strapped with bad acting and dull writing. It's also visually unappealing, totally lacking the creepy mood of the original. When the most interesting parts of a flick is the reused footage from its predecessor, it's not a good sign.

Speaking of which, close to a third of the runtime involves footage from that original movie, which smacks of the lousy "Silent Night, Deadly Night 2." But at least the footage here is sepia toned.

I only recommend this if you're an uber-devotee of the first film and don't mind really low-budget Indies.

It runs about 1 hour, 27 minutes, and was shot in Nebraska, which is a dubious substitute for New England (at least the original was shot around Oyster Bay on northwestern Long Island).

GRADE: D+